Romford

[Monty]

I do have experience, and its experience (not opinion) which indicates to me Hutchinsons behaviour was not entirely suspicious and quite normal.

Sure, people will suspect Hutchinson. However if these people were a litte less selective and take on all the facts/scenarios (which is what I suspect Stewart is suggesting-apologies if I'm wrong Stewart) the conclusion would not always result in clear cut guilt.

Your views are fine, however biased they seem to be.

Monty

[babybird67]

I'm guessing you have little experience with prostitutes and the act of soliciting.

Hutchinsons behaivour isn't that suspicious at all.

Monty

HI Monty

you forgot the golden phrase, IN YOUR OPINION Hutchinson's behaviour wasn't suspicious at all.

Whilst I have no experience of prostitutes, I don't need it to find his behaviour suspicious (in my opinion) a view which I share with a great many other people, many of whom I am assuming also don't have any experience of prostitutes.

From Casebook's page on Hutchinson:

George Hutchinson has since become a controversial witness and issues have been raised about several aspects of his statement:

Why he waited 3 days before volunteering his information.
Why he waited for so long outside Miller's Court that morning.
His extremely detailed description of the man seen with Kelly.

He has also been suggested by several authors as a suspect for the Whitechapel Murders.

So some people have OPINIONS which show there is suspicion to be attached to Hutchinson's version of events.

You're welcome to have an opinion that disagrees with that. As I am to have one which accords with it.

[babybird67]

No I didn't miss your point. I have addressed all aspects of Hutchinson's statement, on these boards, many years ago (they will be found in the archives) and I don't intend to start again. 'The whole thing stinks', in your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. I can accept, "In my opinion the whole thing stinks." I cannot accept, "Sorry, but the whole thing stinks." Perhaps you need to re-think the way you word things.

I am not going to put *in my opinion* in front of everything I write Stewart. Most people can take it as read that what I am expressing here is my opinion and my opinion alone. But thanks for the advice.

[Monty]

I'm guessing you have little experience with prostitutes and the act of soliciting.

Hutchinsons behaivour isn't that suspicious at all.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

You missed my point, Stewart.
Why would he find it so surprising that he would voluntarily set up a vigil in the middle of the night outside the court. Are you suggesting that isn't suspicious behaviour?
I could quite easily swallow he was surprised so took more than a brief glance as Atrakhan, but the vigil after? Then completely forgetting about it until Sunday. Then suddenly remembering and trying to alert a Policeman (to what? this man surprised me on Friday night Officer, can you arrest him please?), to the failure to attend the inquest of the murder of a friend he had known three years and allegedly had seen shortly before she was brutally murdered with a man carrying a parcel which was knife-shaped!
Sorry, but the whole thing stinks.

No I didn't miss your point. I have addressed all aspects of Hutchinson's statement, on these boards, many years ago (they will be found in the archives) and I don't intend to start again. 'The whole thing stinks', in your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. I can accept, "In my opinion the whole thing stinks." I cannot accept, "Sorry, but the whole thing stinks." Perhaps you need to re-think the way you word things.

[babybird67]

Don't be silly.

You missed my point, Stewart.

Why would he find it so surprising that he would voluntarily set up a vigil in the middle of the night outside the court. Are you suggesting that isn't suspicious behaviour?

I could quite easily swallow he was surprised so took more than a brief glance as Atrakhan, but the vigil after? Then completely forgetting about it until Sunday. Then suddenly remembering and trying to alert a Policeman (to what? this man surprised me on Friday night Officer, can you arrest him please?), to the failure to attend the inquest of the murder of a friend he had known three years and allegedly had seen shortly before she was brutally murdered with a man carrying a parcel which was knife-shaped!

Sorry, but the whole thing stinks.

[richardnunweek]

Thank you Stewart,
Now can we accept that Topping was Hutchinson, and was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Now that's settled.
Question.. Why was the mysterious ''A'' man showing his watch and chain, as Kelly approached him, was he flaunting his apparent wealth, or was the motive more sinister?
Regards Richard.

[Stewart P Evans]

Repeat...

For forty five minutes? Most of it watching the entrance to a court, not the couple themselves?

Don't be silly. I really shouldn't have to repeat the fact that I have personally taken hundreds of witness statements. Some people are naturally more observant than others, especially if they have a particular interest in an individual.

It does not take long to note what a person is wearing and Hutchinson stated that he saw the man approach, and speak to, Kelly. He was close enough to hear her reply 'Alright.' Hutchinson stood against the lamp of the Queens Head Public House and watched him. Kelly and the man then actually walked right past (closely) to Hutchinson, against the lamp, and the man hung down his head to avoid Hutchinson's gaze. Hutchinson even stooped down to look under the brim of the man's hat at which the man 'looked stern' at him. He then watched them for about three minutes at the entrance to Miller's Court. Plenty of time and opportunity, altogether, to take in the man's description.

[babybird67]

Obviously Abberline, whilst interrogating Hutchinson, was interested to know why he had taken such note of the description of the man with Kelly. Abberline noted Hutchinson's reason thus, "Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

For forty five minutes? Most of it watching the entrance to a court, not the couple themselves?

[babybird67]

Nor do I, Beebs.

They seem to consist of several photographs of men with watch chains, the irony being that Hutchinson probably would have been required to study a photograph in order to register all that he claimed! As you rightly state, the question of why he referred to a "thick gold watch chain" should be considered before we address the "how" of it. The idea of anyone venturing into that district, at the height of the ripper scare, with his thick gold watch chain on proud display is obviously very fanciful indeed, and the chances if anyone thus adorned departing the area unmugged or unpursued by a lynch mob are very slim. I form the impression more and more that people continue to accept this nonsense out of a secret preference for a wealthy, interesting-looking ripper. It's their way of keeping the bogeyman alive.

All the best,
Ben

Absolutely Benz. And then we have these photographs posted up as if they prove something important!

There! I can see that man's watch chain...you know, the man who is POSING for an AUDIENCE (the audience of the whole of posterity, because he is being PHOTOGRAPHED) - so that must prove that Hutchinson could have equally seen Astakhan's watch chain, who equally would have been displaying his wealth to impress an audience...the audience consisting of a drunken and desperate prostitute who would have needed impressing before she would have given said customer her favours! Yeah right!

Kelly would have been impressed with the sixpence she asked Hutchinson to lend her. There was no rhyme or reason to any display of wealth in Astrkhan's case. In fact it would defy the laws of logic.

[Stewart P Evans]

Obviously...

Obviously Abberline, whilst interrogating Hutchinson, was interested to know why he had taken such note of the description of the man with Kelly. Abberline noted Hutchinson's reason thus, "Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them."

[Ben]

Absolutely, Harry.

He'd receive a thick gold medal for trumping all competition in the descriptive hurdles!

As far as Abberline is concerned, I would contend that his views on Klosowski would also qualify as "very fanciful" today, and for good reason.

[harry]

It was Hutchinson that got it all wrong.Instead of a common labourer or groom,with his stamina and recall,he could easily have made the olympics or a star of stage.

[Stewart P Evans]

Further to my last...

Further to my last, I've obviously got my ideas on this all wrong as Abberline was actually the Ripper, which might explain a lot. I know this as the Sun newspaper has published an article today stating that some Spanish author (and handwriting expert) claims to have finally solved the mystery as the Maybrick 'diary' is in Abberline's handwriting. I knew I was missing something all these years.

[Stewart P Evans]

Obviously...

Obviously Abberline didn't think that the description was 'very fanciful' as he believed it to be true and forwarded it in an official report. But then, what the hell did Abberline know?